51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal provided guidance to the Applicant at a case management discussion and issued a clear warning that he risked facing an order for costs under art. 10.6 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute if he was unable to present an effective challenge to the legal contentions set out in the Respondent¡¯s reply. The Applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his case and filed further submissions. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had no legal standing to contest the decision because (a) not being eligible to apply for the post, he had no stake in the administrative decision; and (b) he...

No request for management evaluation The Tribunal finds that the Applicant relies on a request for management evaluation that contested a different decision to the decision contested in his application. Indeed, the request for management evaluation that he relies upon was submitted prior to the date of the decision contested in his application.No standing as staff representativeThe Tribunal takes cognizance of the fact that the General Assembly considered and rejected a proposal to grant staff associations standing to bring applications before the Dispute Tribunal. The Applicant¡¯s arguments...

The decision was based on a restructuring exercise of the OOSA Office, Beijing, by which the Applicant¡¯s post, which was funded through contributions from the Chinese Government, was replaced by a level 4 Service Contract (SC-4 post). The Applicant claimed that this was irrelevant since her non-renewal was relating to concerns about her performance. The Applicant, whose letter of appointment was with the United Nations Development Program (¡°UNDP¡±), had requested timely management evaluation with the Management Evaluation Unit at UN Headquarters. She had, however, filed a request for management...

A Graduate Certificate is not equivalent to a Bachelor¡¯s or Master¡¯s degree. The correspondence from the Charles Darwin University confirms that ¡°a graduate certificate does not replace, or is equivalent to a bachelor degree, it simply has similar entry requirements in terms of previous education or experience¡±. The Applicant therefore did not have a Master¡¯s degree or equivalent, or a first-level University degree. Removing the Applicant from the roster of preapproved candidates. When the Administration intends to deprive a staff member of a certain status or right that may otherwise have...

The Tribunal considered that since the decision of 29 April 2015 was superseded by subsequent renewals, the application was moot, hence irreceivable. Receivability: An application against a non-renewal of appointment becomes moot when the appointment is extended prior to or pending the proceedings before the Tribunal, since the contested decision is deprived of its effects. As a consequence, the application is irreceivable.

Interpretation of art. 11.3(c) of Appendix DArticle 11.3(c) is ambiguous. Pensionable remuneration scales are adjusted regularly and there is no explicit statement or guidance in Appendix D to indicate the relevant or operative date for assessing the pensionable remuneration at grade P-4, step V in any given case.Past practice¡­it is clear from the afore-stated email that the ABCC Secretary¡¯s personal experience of the consistent practice as at 21 June 2013 spanned a mere period of two years, and that in his experience, this practice has been used without exception. The statement does not...

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed 51ÁÔÆæ the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the UNDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

The UNDT rejected the application as irreceivable, for he only requested management evaluation of the two decisions years after he knew, or should have reasonably known, of the Administration¡¯s inaction.

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant¡¯s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system.